Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers

Hawaii Reporter ^ | 2Jul 06 | Michael R. Fox Ph.D.,

[xzins]

Ethanol in Gasoline: Not a Good Deal for the Consumers By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/2/2006 11:14:32 PM People buying into the myth that Ethanol is our energy ace have simply got to beware.

In Hawaii, that includes The Honolulu Advertiser pushing it (June 20, 2006), and in recent weeks Hawaiian Electric Co. spokespeople, Governor Linda Lingle, and local radio talk show hosts. We had the Bill O'Reilly/Sen. John Kerry love fest on June 29 asserting the ethanol option is the right one. Even President George W. Bush has been swayed by the rhetoric.

These politically correct solutions to our energy supply problems, if allowed to persist, are beyond silly and quite dangerous. Too few understand what energy is and does; too few know what goes on upstream of the gas pumps and behind the electrical switches.

There are many good handbooks of chemistry and engineering which can add considerable information to all. There are all too few engineers involved with these debates as well. Thus, according to American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the energy content in a gallon of Ethanol is well known to be about 76,000 Btu/gallon of ethanol. Gasoline by contrast contains about 50 percent more energy at 114,000 Btu/gal. (The British thermal unit, Btu, is one of many commonly used units of energy)

As Ethanol is mixed with gasoline, the energy per gallon of the mixed fuel drops, being diluted with the less energetic ethanol. The E85 mixture (85 percent Ethanol) contains 83,260 Btu/gal. Obviously, this is less energy than is in the gasoline itself, and as a result, the mileage will therefore drop.

A major reason why Ethanol is so popular in the United States is the presence of huge subsidies throughout, not because of any magical energy sources.

There are subsidies for growing the corn, for building the distilleries, and a 51 cent subsidy for every gallon of ethanol produced. This is to say that the taxpayers are paying much of the Ethanol tab. Whatever the consumers pay at the pump is so much the better for the ethanol lobby.

This excludes state tax credits and other subsidies.

For the record according to Patzek, in the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, taxpayers spent $41.9 billion in corn subsidies.

Currently, according to Patzek (UC Berkeley The Real Biofuel Cycles April 17, 2006), there is an estimated total ethanol tax credit of 57cents per gallon.

This is collected by the Ethanol lobby, too. Just to make things sweeter, the U.S. has erected import tariffs on imported ethanol of more than 50 cents/gallon to defend against lower cost imports of that Brazilian ethanol. This helps to inflate the price of ethanol to the consumers, quite similar to the tariffs erected to protect the US sugar lobby.

According to Tad Patzek, the true costs of corn ethanol to the taxpayers are $3.12 per gallon of ethanol, or $4.74 per gallon of gasoline equivalent GGE—to adjust for the energy difference in the two fuels).

This sleight of hands bears studying. If ethanol at the pump shows a price of say $2.75/gallon, and that for gasoline is $3.00/gallon some would conclude that the ethanol is the cheaper energy. It’s not. Since the gallon of ethanol contains only 65% of the energy of the gallon of gasoline, the price for the ethanol per gallon of gasoline equivalent (GGE), is $2.75 / 0.65 = $4.23/gallon. This is not a good deal for the consumers.

A closer look is needed at the “great Ethanol successes” in Brazil claimed by television host Bill Oreilly, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, and others. It’s a completely different situation.

First, Brazilian Ethanol is made from sugar cane, not corn, and is a much more suitable source of ethanol. Furthermore, the sugar cane grows all year around.

We can’t grow corn year round in the US, nor is it very well suited for ethanol, nor can we grow sugar cane in the Midwest climates. Brazil is in many ways a 3rd world country certainly not fully developed and not nearly as productive and energy intensive as the U.S.

Many families do not own any cars and the cars which do exist are much smaller. The population is smaller, 62 percent of the US at 186 million. Brazil also has vast tracts of very cheap land available for agriculture.

Ethanol has a great number of engineering problems to be a serious energy source for the future, not the least of which is its relatively low energy density 76,000 Btu/gal. For our leaders to be throwing out these superficial one-line energy solutions for uninformed Americans is as dangerous as it is misleading. There are many long range cost and performance uncertainties in comparing sugar cane, sugar beets, and corn infrastructures needed in the manufacture of ethanol.

In all cases the crops require long term agricultural operations, infrastructure, and investment including water, land, and energy, nutrients (fertilizers) of millions of acres of land.

In spite of the exaggerations the word is getting out about the dubious nature of Ethanol. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote (June 29, 2006):

“We don't make ethanol from corn because it is efficient..... And we don't use corn because it is environmentally friendly. Growing it sucks up huge amounts of energy and water and leaves tons of chemicals adrift in the ecosystem. We make ethanol mostly out of corn because it is astoundingly plentiful, thanks to decades of heavy federal subsidies.”

We’d do well to remember what John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:foxm011@hawaii.rr.com

[mbynack]

I've read several articles on ethenol lately and they all miss the most important point - It's a waste of perfectly good alcohol.

[phoenix0468]

Kittymonky says hybrids are the way to go!!

[BurbankKarl]

Are you talking about bio-Butanol? I read that the oil companies are all investing in "waste" ethanol, meaning grass clippings, used corn stalks, then fed to microorganisms to create the fuel.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal about it, and how it came out of technology from the Vietnam war?

[mbynack]

Anyone who thinks that adding alcohol to gasoline will decrease the price of energy hasn't priced a bottle of whiskey lately.

[P8riot]

This is a no-sh!tter. Before switching to ethanol blends I was getting up to 37MPG Hwy and 30MPG around town. Now you can't nuy anything but ethanol blends around here and I am lucky to get 33 Hwy and 25 around town.

My vehicles are scrupulously maintained, tires inflated properly and oil and filters changed regularly.

I have toned my driving down quite considerably too. I don't ever exceed the posted limit anymore, always travel on the right, no jackrabbit starts, or quick stops. I'm doing the best that I can, but the energy level in the fuel is just not there.

[xzins]

Good example. Thanks.

[spinestein]

[...as the new fuels become more prevalent the costs of production will decrease.]



This is very true. If and when ethanol production for fuel becomes more widespread, it's guaranteed that the cost will come down substantially to the point where it's less expensive per energy unit output than gasoline or diesel.

Also, engines which are optimized for alcohol can run at higher compression ratios because of the higher octane rating, and so can produce more power (about 40% more) than a relative BTU comparison would suggest.

If we were to produce alcohol in the same large quantities that refined gasoline is produced, it would be very competitive and would likely be the preferred choice for many consumers.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Instead, it's all about providing benefits to special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.

But Willie Green said tariffs and subsidies guaranteed a larger supply at lower prices. He couldn't have been wrong, could he?

[phoenix0468]

The only real place it has is as a replacement for gasoline. I truly do not believe the cost of fuel will decrease with any new fuel. I wish I were wrong, and I wish we could have alternatives now, but the fact is that gasoline and diesel remain the most efficient, effective fuel sources available for combustion engines.

I believe that new energy sources are the way to go. I.E. electric motors which can be regenerated by the sun, or even by the vehicles own movement with turbines that can resupply batteries, as well as energy trapped from braking.

[Colinsky]

Other problems with ethanol:
It can't be transported over pipelines and must be carried in tanker trucks.
It corrodes and damages parts inside engines built for gasoline.

[EEDUDE]

" The desire for energy independence makes us all want to find a way to cut loose from foreign oil, but ethanol is a singularly poor way of accomplishing that goal.

We'd be better advised to let our own energy producers find and develop domestic oil sources with less hostility and blame."


Very well stated.


The real future for reducing foreign oil consumption is the use of small Diesel engines combined with conservation and development of supplies here at home.

Everyone thinks that diesels are so dirty. They are not. I worked for years developing Diesel engine control systems and I can assure you that they are orders of magnitude cleaner than they used to be.

When you look at emissions in terms of total miles traveled vs pollutants per gallon of fuel consumed it looks a lot better.

But the EPA and CARB find Diesels a politically unacceptable solution.

Based on the article's BTU calculations I suspect that ethanol blends such as E85 are no less polluting than regular gasoline.

These are not matters that most folks have the knowledge to understand.

Politics and emotion rule the day.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's expense comes from the fact that it is very expensive to produce, and the resulting product from original source is far less than gasoline from crude.

This could also describe hydrogen.

[P8riot]

The real future for reducing foreign oil consumption is the use of small Diesel engines combined with conservation and development of supplies here at home.

I'm gonna start driving my New Holland the 12 miles each way into work.

[Lekker 1]

This article completely ignores the fact that ethanol vastly increases your odds of getting laid.

[xpertskir]

First and Foremost, Ethanol is a Corn state PORK PRODUCT, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.

Secondly, it is heralded for its decreasing of emissions. It however creates more pollution during its creation than it can ever hope to reduce.

Biodiesel, ethanol, and hybrids are NOT the answer.

hydrogen, could be the answer. I believe its the second or third most abundant element on earth. Its just a matter of safety and efficiency in converting water to hydrogen.

[nhoward14]

I share your same beliefs about the pollutant levels. My gut tells me pure gasoline emissions post-processed with a working catalytic converter can be as "clean" as ethanol emissions. I just can't point to any authoritative studies on the matter, and even if I could, I doubt I could fully comprehend the results since I've never studied organic chemistry.

[GOPJ]

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is the energy and science writer for Hawaii Reporter. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.

Fox is right. What's the joke? That it takes 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol? Farm equipment fuels, fertilizers etc, don't come from the air... I wish we could hold the delusions dems hold... it would be soooo much easier.

[xpertskir]

Independence is not a rational argument to halt or alter trade.

Traditional economic theory states that any need for independence can be fulfilled through stockpiling instead of paying higher prices.

Hence strategic oil reserves.

[Lekker 1]

It also takes 3 Btus of fossil fuel to generate 1 Btu of electricity. I guess electricity will never catch on either.

[P8riot]

The real solution to the problem: